What do you think of Political Correctness on DU?

I'm interested in hearing your perspectives on 'PC' on DU.
Feel free to chime in with your opinions on it, for society in general too.

:)

If it were up to me. The guys upstairs, though, they won't allow it.

and if you cannot produce him in MY labs, under my conditions, then you can never convince me he does exist.

:)

after they spent an entire evening huffing model airplane glue.

:silly:

but not good enough to be upstairs. That's a witttle too much power if you get my drift.

And BTW, your question offended me :rofl:

sometimes topical conversations are not meant to be personal.

So... Why do so many people take topical conversations as personal attacks?

(How's that for double-irony, though everyone relevant to the "ulterior motive" has me on ignore so it really doesn't matter?)

going out of your way to offend noone.
catering to everyone in every way possible.
it varies, depending on how you do it, how much you do it.

:rofl:

:shrug:

:)

so i'm not worried about being flamed. my vast psychic powers will save me.

I've always thought you could needle people over things they could change, and lay off the stuff they can't..

especially when used by the right wing. It used to mean walking on eggshells not to offend anybody. These days it seems that anybody who shows a little tolerance or sensitivity towards other's feelings is labeled "politically correct".

Nice post, btw. :)

To be honest, I don't think PC was ever as much of a force as it's opponants built it up to be. An awful lot more people use "politically incorrect" as a point of pride than ever did for PC.

Most of the time, guys like Rush or O'Reilly are just complaining because someone called them out for being assholes. How hard is it to show a little sensitivity?
On DU, I've noticed a few people take it too far (like calling the phrase "my girl" sexist), but I just laugh it off.

What started out as a well-intentioned movement got out of control.

It is their prerogative to say whatever, whenever they please and if women don't like it, they are bitching, having the vapors or ignoring the important issues of the day and should stop immediately.

You know that routine, don't you? Isn't it getting boring?

:)

:)

"cheerleaders" who only live with "full glasses." :shrug:

how all my hair wound up on my keyboard. Drats.

Too vague, and over-co-opted and mangled by RWers. I personally LOATHE the phrase. It's as though the only reason one ought to show basic respect for others and refrain from being an outright bigot is because of that goddamned "political correctness."

You yanked that one right out of my brain. The term "political correctness" allows people to justify their own insensitivity and narrow-mindedness by labeling such respect as "political correctness."

It's a free country. :sarcasm:

The only people I see railing against "political correctness" are the ones that don't want their bigotry exposed.

-S

And I'm distinguishing between 'not being a bigot' and 'going out of your way to never offend anybody ever in any way'

one which i don't have, personally, where people go out of their way to never offend anyone ever, and oftentimes LOOK for reasons to be offended...
me, i just prefer to be civil and polite to everyone i encounter. i think hypersensitivity is in itself insulting towards minorities. that doesn't mean i don't think people should be called on the carpet for hate speech...don imus, for instance, should've been ashamed of his stupid ass, and his attempts to justify himself only made him look worse. dog the bounty hunter is a racist asshole, and as far as i'm concerned, is getting what he deserves.
but i believe it goes too far.

if you are offended by bigoted comments, why you are just 'too sensitive'. In addition to being a racial/gender/sexual preference/whatever minority, you also have this looming hypersensitivity that spoils everyone's fun. Nobody likes you and you suck, so go die.

The phrase "too politically correct" as one of my friends explains it, is a convenient way to shift the blame from the bigot to the victim/target of the bigot's racist/sexist/homophobic speech.

"Black people are oppressing me by not letting me kick back and spew ugly stereotypes about them in peace - which I enjoy. It makes me laugh, they need to lighten up."
ditto for women, the GLBT community, immigrants, etc.

Yeah. They're WAYYYYY TOO sensitive to take offense at being told to "eat shit and die" or "go cough up blood and die" Nothin' offensive about that. Nope.

(Both are quotes of long-time DUers.)

:applause:

Language matters.

"I don't know why I should care about that."

There are militant atheists here that feel it's OK to attack believers, but can't take a little scrutiny of their own.

But I have to say, I agree (and yeah, my fucking flame suit is on people, and I am dousing it with beer just in case).

i can say that it goes both ways. I've seen some harsh comments at atheists, and i've seen plenty of broad brush smears against all people of faith.
however, it does seem attacks on religious people do tend to be tolerated more often than you'd think.

Have not had enough beer yet!

:)

I don't insult people of faith as a rule, yet I get broad brushed with all sorts of nasties if I even criticize a little bit the religion itself. There is a difference between criticizing the religion and criticizing personal faith and some can't seem to differentiate. I have even seen certain fundamental type behavior defended in R/T (see a thread about ID).

and i've seen religious people being referred to as 'delusional' or 'having a mental illness'. that's not criticism, it's insulting.

that will smack down those people who say just that (I started a thread about such a topic myself). I think atheists get unfairly characterized by a few obnoxious posters. Every group has its assholes, but somehow it seems like anytime any atheist says anything bad its taken as proof of the amoral insensitive atheist. Just my two cents. I think that the posters you refer to seem to be more vocal than the reasonable ones so seem to be more numerous than they really are....

PS - do you not think that those who criticize certain religions being labelled as racist is just as bad? That has been happening on quite a regular basis in R/T of late....

i think criticicism of any and all religion is valid. if we can't handle the introspection, why do we follow the faith? i think it depends on the language used...lots of insults and profanity might make a post less valid as criticism.

see, that's MY frustration...some bad apples spoiling the bunch. there are some atheists who give all atheists a bad name, and some christians who give all christians a bad name. i fight against those bad christians to try and show that not all of us are fundie whacko haters. i think the important thing for us christians to do is, is not let the actions of a few hostile and assholish atheists distort our views of those who are civil.

Nor do I think its proper to hold you responsible for other peoples bigotry. And thats a problem with both sides I think...A belief that we are our brothers (or sisters) keepers....:)

I'm game if you are.

Atheist Removes Memorial Crosses For Woman, Baby
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1961309

I posted the OP based on a news story I came across on Local 6 (and if you look at my history posting, I post a lot from that news source).

I have posted a lot of threads about Christians that were negative in their coverage, but posting one where an atheist was mentioned seemed to be near flame bait.

I think we see similar things here today - post something negative about Muslims, and people bring up Christians in the thread. Post something negative about atheists, and it gets defensive and people again talk about the bad Christians have done. It seems there is no discussion that can take place about any group/religion without people diverting it to Christians (they did some bad things, so it is ok that others did too).

Now - in that thread, people were sure to point out at times that just because one person who was an atheist did/believed something that it does not mean all that are atheist are the same.

Well duh. Same can be said about other people too.

I'd like to hear more. Is it your contention that in a discussion about the negatives of religion, its improper to include Christianity in the discussion?

That when discussing topic X there is no need to bring in Y.

In a case when one is discussing (as in the OP I posted) what someone from group X is doing there is no reason to bring in group Y.

What we have often here is if, for example I post some article about rw fundies (which I have done many times) there is no reason to talk about islamic fundies - that is a separate issue. And 99% of the time it is not mentioned.

However, bring up a topic about any other group than Christians and you can be sure that it will be brought up how Christians are just as bad.

It almost seems like the best defense people have of group X is that group Y was bad too, and since Y is bigger than X we cannot discuss that group outside of X.

Which seems pretty damned stupid to me, and hell - I am probably just as guilty. Still does not make it proper form.

So Group V should be able to complain about members of Group W doing X without anyone being able to mention that members of Group V have done worse?

play martyr without anyone calling them out for their rampaging sense of entitlement.

what difference does it make about privileged in this case? If someone is trying to discuss the problems with one group, why do we have to bring in another group to the conversation?

I can say republicans are bad without talking about how democratic folks over the years have done some bad things. Is that so wrong?

"That atheist is being mean! He called me delusional!"

"Christians have converted people at the point of the sword for centuries."

See how bringing in the second group brings a new sense of perspective, and provides a check on excessive self-pity on the part of a member of a dominant group?

I mean really, I can't find fault in some group for their beliefs without someone telling me I am just as bad or not worse?

Hello - the same can be said about our own party, does that mean I should not vote for dems because at one point they were pro-slavery?

Can't we talk about TODAY and where things stand relative to our current beliefs and ideals? Why do some insist on combating the negative about one group by saying someone else did worse (and thus trying to justify it)?

I think that's pointing out a rude and insulting post. Just because Christians have done (are doing) asshole things, doesn't mean atheists have free reign to say whatever nasty things they want to Christians without fear of criticism themselves.

in the event that they don't get any sympathy. Privileged groups, majorities, and elites are not sympathetic figures when they are pleading unfairness.

i'm a white christian male, too...and i'd have to have a screw loose to think i'm anything but privileged...at least in that regard.

short of being born a Bush or a Kennedy. Still do, as long as I don't tell people I'm an atheist. It makes me embarrassed to face members of minority groups and wonder how much they justifiably resent me for having access to privilege that they are just as or more entitled to than I am.

if someone mentions an example of, say, a Buddhist doing something wrong (like most of those evil Buddhist fuckers tend to do--don't get me started!), there's an immediate (dare we say "kneejerk") response of "Oh, like Christians don't do/haven't done worse."

Or, a more recent example, someone criticizes the way homosexuals are treated in Iran, and there's a "yeah but what about America" response.

It seems like the existence of some evil that isn't Christian/American/White/Bush/Republican must be countered with one that is. Why? Why can't we admit that Ahmadinejad is an evil fucker without having to immediately follow up with, "but so is Bush"? Saying that Ahmadinejad is evil doesn't mean that Bush becomes a saint. He's still a fuckwad. Why do I need to remind anyone of that? Why can't I give an example of an atheist like Newdow doing something stupid without having to list examples of stupidities being committed by Christians?

Which reminds me: don't forget, the war on Christmas starts early this year. Report to the Lounge for your marching orders, everyone!

You have to get up early in war :)

But I am confused now, is it a war on Christians or on Santa (whom some Christians hate)? Is it a war on how Christmas has lost it's meaning or a war against it's meaning?

Aw - fuck it all. I want gifts, good food, and fun times with family. Who cares about how it started and what it means, I adopted it for me and my needs, I can throw the rest a bone and hang a stocking and decorate a tree :)

Personally, I'm in the music division. I'm helping to take out anyone who sings crappy Christmas music.

You should have seen what we did to Kenny G after this:

You know, remove the beam from your own eye before removing the mote from your brother's, and all that. Jesus himself is claimed to have said that.

Isn't that just part of being a Christian? If so, why complain? If not, then I'm awfully comfused.

:)

I'm attempting to hold Christians to their own standards. That doesn't mean that I myself am held to them. Nonetheless, I am not aware of any beams in my eye on this issue. I have done my best to be consistent.

You didn't answer my question: How is this desire that Christians not be called out for their misdeeds when they are criticizing other groups...well, Christian?

We can separate issues as people.

Secondly, you are not a Christian but you say you want to hold them to their own standards - how do you define their standards as they differ from sect to sect - MUCH like we differ in the US in how we interpret our own constitution (ever see threads here on gun rights????).

*I* can see the beam in the eye of fellow Christians, and I call it out. But I can also see the beam in the eyes of people not Christian and call that out - and there is no reason to have it all in one conversation.

Just because one group has a problem does not mean we cannot discuss another group and it's problems at the same time. Wrong is wrong, and trying to defend someone else's wrong based on another group's wrong seems pretty damned silly to me.

That reminds me of when the CEO of Celestial Seasonings was complaining about homosexuals trying to persecute him. He complained that he was being targeted because he was a Christian. And I thought, "Dude, Jesus said you were going to be persecuted for following him. Now go make some tea!"

The political perspective strikes me as odd, though.

Here's something the evil ol' atheist (me) posted. The majority of posts even by atheists are pretty supportive of my points..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=147102&mesg_id=147102

:hug:

nice post BTW.

but that broad brushing ANYONE is wrong, and as much as it seems that Christians get stereotyped sometimes, its equally apparant to me that atheists often get the same type of broad brushing....

if I have done so I was wrong (though, to be fair to myself - if I did so it was based on what I saw here... :rofl: )

By and by what I have seen is that no matter what group (or more precisely person you attack who is a member of a group) you post about the base defense (for some fucked up reason) is that another group has done worse (like that makes it ok).

Kinda like saying the Nazi's weren't bad cause the Romans did bad things too. Pretty lame.

the situation.

Ugh.

Incidentally, anyone who votes for a different candidate than me? They do it because they are self-centered hypocrites.

:)

And I generally don't. That said, there have been times when I have run into people who it seemed were just looking to be offended.

Note to self: Try not to post in GD:P two hours or so after eating Baked Bean and Sauerkraut sandwiches.

A) A good idea

B) Fuck em, why should I care?

means that someone is a bigoted asshole.

going out of the way to not offend anyone ever.
i think it's unrealistic to take it that far. i just try my best to be polite and respectful to everyone i encounter.
i'm usually pretty succesful at that.

it sums up perfectly how i feel about the term.

You nailed it. Exactly right.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

without any specific mention of any bigotry anywhere...

:eyes:

let alone where bigotry is not alluded to

:spank:

Co-Author, Counterinsurgency...you know the one,

In a world where our opponents show up with little intent to merely play the game but to WIN! With little further regard for civility let alone: Political Correctness, it may be time to consider PC's utility a passing observance.

edit: s'pell'n

Generally, it's used to put down people who complain about racism, sexism, homophobia et cetera.

i've been hearing it for years. i use it myself, only because i've heard it used so often.
and yes, in my mind it does have a negative meaning, but i don't interpret it the same way a right-winger would either.

Back in the 30s, "politically correct" was something that leftists of various stripes wanted to be, at least with respect to their own group. In the 60s it became a term of contempt used about people who would rather split hairs about the minutiae of various political philosophies instead of getting out into the streets and organizing. I'll always regret that some splinter Trotskyite sect never thought to trademark the term--would have been great to collect tolls from all the asshole conservative bigots who later appropriated ti.

and it had a spotted history in the 60s, but it was hijacked by loons at the Dartmouth Review in the very early 80s. The Dartmouth Review, incidentally, was the breeding ground for such right wing slugs as Dinesh D'Souza and Laura Ingraham. It was one of the themes that they used over and over again and then, as they started to become national media figures, turned it into a catchword.

I hate the term and just won't use it.

instead of examining the problems around the term we simply dismiss them as being RW and think we get a pass.

What a HUGE surprise.

Guess being emotional is an argument in and of itself to some.

Yeah, there's way too much of that in this world :eyes:

Some commentators, usually on the political left, have argued that the term "political correctness" is a straw man invented by the New Right to discredit progressive social change, especially around issues of race and gender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

It is used in a manipulative manner by the right, to be sure. However, i do think there are people out there that seem to seek things to be offended by.

Can you give an example, that we introduce the possibility that there is too much sensitivity to subgroups at DU?

i don't think it's a group.
i think it's individuals.
there are just some individuals on the boards (from ALL sorts of groups) who fall into this category.

i don't follow you.

and is called on it.

You wouldn't be accused of being "too PC" by saying you just didn't like someone's shoes.

were referring to 'Thought Police' and ranting and raving about it.
It's just absurd. I mean, with all the REAL problems we have in our society, these white guys want to bitch about how oppressed they feel.
wow.

In general, those who were the first to use the phrase loudly, publicly, were detractors of the movement.

usually when people complain about having to be "PC" they are pissed because somebody chastised them for being an asshole. But if they can be an asshole, somebody else can call them on it. IMO, whining about the PC police because you offended somebody and they told you they're offended is a cop out. If you want to say something offensive, at least own it.

Sometimes people complain about DU being too PC because they got some posts deleted. Well, boo hoo. It's a private board; nobody has the right to post anything. For a short time, Skinner banned posts about chicken from the lounge (because 90% of the posts had some bullshit double meaning that I missed). It's a private board and people who don't like that offensive posts are deleted can vote with their virtual feet.

and i'm not talking about racist/sexist/intolerant statements...but things that MIGHT be construed as offensive to SOMEONE.
for instance, a recent thread criticizing how some of the hypocrite fundies use one part of the book of leviticus to justify their hatred of gays, but ignore the rest.
i thought it was an excellent point (i am a christian myself) but some felt that the post was insulting ALL christians.
that's what i'm talking about. people who almost LOOK for something to be offended by.

:hug:
i just didn't wanna be the one who said it.

and I can't believe that any DUers are dumb enough to buy it.

despite the fact that the word can be used to describe a woman or a man.

In its original form, "political correctness" was a left-wing term, and it was used by Marxists in particular. It didn't refer to language but to whether a proposed ACTION conformed to Marxist ideology. For example, Marxists might argue about whether it was "politically correct" to ally themselves with anti-war religious groups or to accept donations from a wealthy foundation.

The current distorted use of "political correctness" was originated by some right-wingers ridiculing some of the admittedly silly euphemisms that were coming into use, some of which were not actually used by the people affected. Profoundly deaf people refer to themselves as deaf, but some people who weren't necessarily deaf were insisting on using "hearing impaired, " which is a much broader term that can include a slight hearing loss.

However, these authors made up some "politically correct" terms that WERE NEVER ACTUALLY USED, including "vertically challenged" for "short" and "follicly challenged" for "bald."

What some people on DU see as "politlcal correctness" is actually just plain good manners. A lot of the language that many DUers object to would not have been considered polite in times past. When I was growing up in the 1950s, people with manners didn't refer to other people by body parts in polite society. However, a lot of people these days seem to enjoy being crude, and crudity often includes offensive language.

This poll is therefore bullshit. No one ever accuses anyone of not being PC, rather those who feel accused of something else defend themselves by pretending they are being subjected to some phantom accusation of not being PC.

Noone forced you to post here and make a comment on it, either.

People make assertions, others come and debate them. It's all done voluntarily (no one forced you to post a poll, no one forced me to comment on it). Calling the implicit assertion of your poll bullshit is allowed. Nothing personal. (Or are you going to say it's not PC to call bullshit when one sees it?)

Say what you will.

See my other responses, I'm not going to unduly repeat myself. (don't take that as an insult, it's just a generalized comment I'd make to anyone else under the same situation.)

This thread is one of those that gets filed under "game."

:shrug:

It astounds me how few people seem to understand or know this history.

I have a higher tolerance for crude language than some, but I also don't feel oppressed when someone tells me that the words I'm using are hurtful and explain why. I might not agree with them, but in the interest of not deliberately causing people pain, I respect their request.

And what I see most on DU with regards to "PC police" claims are people who want to use sexist or homophobic terms and come up with all kinds of excuses for why the words they're using are not. After being presented with all of the arguments and explanations for why certain terms are actually hurtful to people regardless of intent, they usually degenerate into "I don't care if it is sexist/transphobic/homophobic/hurtful to anyone. I have the right to say what I want!" That's very telling to me.

...popular with the kids i work with when they're angry with each other. i HATE that word. disgusting, ugly, and hateful. :puke:

:D

:)

Is a liberal's definition of PC the same as a neo-con's --?

well, i can tell you that DU is not the only site fixated on the notion that 'word-play fixes real problems'.

if it's not used as a bludgeon. People can be insensitive sometimes and not know it. We need people to keep us from becoming assholes, without being an asshole in the process.

But I'm not. Sadly.

A good example is the thread about the burger king ad being a pro torture message, that was really reaching.

what did the ad consist of?

because burger kings new burger tastes better than theirs. The hitman asks do you want it to be quick or slow (something like that, I'm paraphrasing). One of the moms replied "Take your time". I can't seem to find it on youtube but heres a link to thread in question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2190180

Are we all so uptight we can't take a little dark humor now? The question really becomes, what isn't considered offensive around here.

Two totally separate concepts.

I dont care. I'm refering to the stupid shit some people get offended by. Call it what you want.

I feel civility and common courtesy are in short supply here
at times.

It is possible to disagree with someone without
trashing them.

:hi:

and I reject the term "political correctness" because it wrongly attempts to assign civility and respect for others a political connotation.

Being civil or considerate of others is not political, its just good behavior.

It really has little to do with politics.
It has everything to do with character.

:hi:

I don't get it.

The point isn't whether or not you found the neologism funny.

and has been co-opted by the RW.

I remember using it back in the '70's to describe other members of the Women's community who had a limited idea of what Feminists and Lesbians should do and be interested in. (Make-up, rock and roll, friendships with men, weren't PC.)

It's too bad that the RW has ruined the term for us, because I still find it useful to describe people who are closed-minded and afraid to have a real conversation instead of repeating slogans and talking points.

that isn't sexist language. :crazy:

Can't you tell by the vote?

I'm going to have to change my vote to "It goes too far a lot of the time. It's getting bad."

Anyone who feels the need to "correct" me in any manner had better protect their virtual privates from my virtual boot.

I will NOT be told what I meant to say.

EVER.

Let the PC net nannies beware.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

??

I needed an example so I used one that has been discussed on DU before. But no, read altogether much into it, imply I'm a racist and openly reinforce the problem as highlighted in the poll at the top of this thread.

And you are the one saying there is a problem. Meanwhile, "too PC" is often used by people who want to use offensive language and seek some cover for it.

Are you suggesting that because you didn't see it, it didn't exist?

"Meanwhile, "too PC" is often used by people who want to use offensive language and seek some cover for it."

First things, I don't consider language offensive. I don't see words like "nigger", "kike", "cunt", "faggot" as inherently offensive. Permutations of letters cannot hold a point of view. As with all speech, the intent of the speaker and the context drives the meaning of the words.

But don't let me explaining my point of view stop you from making gross mischaracterisations about me, because hey, anyone who "wants to use" "offensive" language is just a troublemaker eh?

sometimes so much that the original serious topic gets lots amongst the infighting. x(

I can't come up with anything.

We have to have really tough hides in this country. Let them say their stupid things. We have to learn to shrug our shoulders and not feel threatened. If we act threatened, they think they are winning.

And scolding liberals as racists, sexists, etc., strikes me as one of the most counterproductive things on earth. If you're going to attack the people who are on your side, how will you deal with the real racists, sexists, etc?